Where is the classic start menu in Windows 7

[mirsad]

You can sell even 1 billion of copies if you do not offer any alternative it is simple as that or force someone to sell that way

But reality is different and most of companies downgrade these machines to XP

Office 2007 is a great leap in function not in functional way

May someone miss my point? I believe that anyone who says you must go on is right everything is changing.

I look software from two points? technical improvement and functional improvement.

If end user says that this is less functional it is and you cannot argue about that.

Ex Excel 2007 user works in excel over 8 year in advanced level (include code and macro creation). He needs to find simple fill series 15 minutes.

My daughter find this in meter of seconds and she do not use excel at all.

May be this way is acceptable for users which do not work with office at all before. But this is idea which is old enough and people are used to this so why they do not offer as an option.

To put this simple. You all have mobile phone. Most of you have bluetooth hands free. Let?s consider situation you are in office mobile and hadnsfree are on your desk what you will pick first? Of course phone.

Let we imagine situation that there is only one major mobile phone manufacturer in the world, and he decide to change design of mobile phone in that way that they decide just to sell hands free mobile phone state of the art super intelligent but no keyboard just voice commands and to put all "classic" mobile phones out of market. Do you think that is great idea?

[Miuku.]

Care to elaborate, or are you just in the "changes scare me" fanclub?

Change is good when it improves something - not when it's just change for the sake of selling a new version.

I've had the unfortunate "joy" of teaching people how to use o2k7 that were used to previous versions - did the new version boost their productivity? No, instead of the learning curve killed any benefits because people had already learned where things happen and what shortcuts to use to make certain actions - now all that was practically thrown away.

The amount of calls we had from people asking "where is this and that" killed any efficiency benefits for future as well - the amount of time and money wasted in the whole upgrade (alongside Vista rollouts) was the biggest computing mistake I've ever seen.

Thankfully I don't have to touch Windows or Office in any form, ever again.

[Kirkburn]

Change is good when it improves something - not when it's just change for the sake of selling a new version.

I've had the unfortunate "joy" of teaching people how to use o2k7 that were used to previous versions - did the new version boost their productivity? No, instead of the learning curve killed any benefits because people had already learned where things happen and what shortcuts to use to make certain actions - now all that was practically thrown away.

The amount of calls we had from people asking "where is this and that" killed any efficiency benefits for future as well - the amount of time and money wasted in the whole upgrade (alongside Vista rollouts) was the biggest computing mistake I've ever seen.

Thankfully I don't have to touch Windows or Office in any form, ever again.

Obviously there is downtime due to UI changes, no-one would dispute that. But in the long term, the benefits of the ribbon far outweigh that relearning time. If you only think in the short term, that's pretty damning already.

You also make it sound like nothing changed between Office 97 to 2003, that the UI in Office 97 must have been perfect, and that people really don't do weird things to their toolbars. Guess what, you're wrong, and MS actually had the data to prove it. It was in no way "change for change's sake".

I strongly recommend reading http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/ ... it basically refutes everything you just said.

[morphen]

isn't this topic dead and closed yet? anyone that just not cannot cope with reality?

[Kirkburn]

You can sell even 1 billion of copies if you do not offer any alternative it is simple as that or force someone to sell that way

But reality is different and most of companies downgrade these machines to XP

Evidence?

Office 2007 is a great leap in function not in functional way

Actually, MS ran many studies that showed people thought Office 2007 with the ribbon was full of new functionality. It generally wasn't, they just never found those functions in previous versions - which is essentially the same result.

But this is idea which is old enough and people are used to this so why they do not offer as an option.

For the same reason Windows 95 did not have a Win 3.11 mode. You can't support two very different interfaces for the same program, at the same time. (Or, you can, but it would be insane)

To put this simple. You all have mobile phone. Most of you have bluetooth hands free. Let’s consider situation you are in office mobile and hadnsfree are on your desk what you will pick first? Of course phone.

That doesn't mean the mobile is better than the handsfree from a productivity or usefulness perspective. People just like mobiles more. It also gives them an excuse not to multitask.

I would love to see someone dispute that a lot of decisions in the workplace are made on the basis of procrastination and avoiding extra work and stress. :)

Let we imagine situation that there is only one major mobile phone manufacturer in the world, and he decide to change design of mobile phone in that way that they decide just to sell hands free mobile phone state of the art super intelligent but no keyboard just voice commands and to put all "classic" mobile phones out of market. Do you think that is great idea?

Your reasoning here appears to be that because MS are big, they cannot innovate or change anything. If there really are issues with the changes, you will see a big increase in alternatives.

[zhangm Supervisor]

You can sell even 1 billion of copies if you do not offer any alternative it is simple as that or force someone to sell that way

There are alternatives, as you claimed previously. MacOS, Linux, etc.

But reality is different and most of companies downgrade these machines to XP

This makes sense and is great for companies that are using older hardware. It means that they can upgrade to Vista on their next equipment cycle without buying additional licenses.

Office 2007 is a great leap in function not in functional way

May someone miss my point? I believe that anyone who says you must go on is right everything is changing.

I look software from two points? technical improvement and functional improvement.

If end user says that this is less functional it is and you cannot argue about that.

Ex Excel 2007 user works in excel over 8 year in advanced level (include code and macro creation). He needs to find simple fill series 15 minutes.

My daughter find this in meter of seconds and she do not use excel at all.

Try the Search Commands addin for Office 2007. It lets everyone find things in meter of seconds.

Thankfully I don't have to touch Windows or Office in any form, ever again.

And yet we continue to enjoy your helpful presence in the Windows forums.

[Akaruz]

its just a matter of having choices , certain people hate the search ( I do - and i did turned it off on vista for instance - along with the indexing ) as some on Office hate the ribbon ( for example AutoCad also has it , and its extremely configurable - but i prefer the old menu.

People might say well its progress or its shinier , the main issue is that certain people prefer the old menus and would love to have that choice

Well I would love to be able to fully customize the win 7 menu , at least i would put the Run where the search is and move the right "Show Desktop" icon on taskbar near the win7 icon like in the past

offtopic

1 Thing i hate ( unless there is an option but i dont know ) on the new menu - the history of certain programs , as an example

Windows Media center and the never ending list of files you saw or used , why there isnt any option to remove all ?

[Calum Veteran]

its just a matter of having choices , certain people hate the search ( I do - and i did turned it off on vista for instance - along with the indexing ) as some on Office hate the ribbon ( for example AutoCad also has it , and its extremely configurable - but i prefer the old menu.

People might say well its progress or its shinier , the main issue is that certain people prefer the old menus and would love to have that choice

Well I would love to be able to fully customize the win 7 menu , at least i would put the Run where the search is and move the right "Show Desktop" icon on taskbar near the win7 icon like in the past

I think the main reason they don't let you have the old configurations for long is because of resources when it comes to support and things.

I don't understand why some people find it hard to adapt to changes, especially when those changes are an improvement, but then I guess that's just me :)

[dr_crabman]

Well I would love to be able to fully customize the win 7 menu , at least i would put the Run where the search is and move the right "Show Desktop" icon on taskbar near the win7 icon like in the past

offtopic

1 Thing i hate ( unless there is an option but i dont know ) on the new menu - the history of certain programs , as an example

Windows Media center and the never ending list of files you saw or used , why there isnt any option to remove all ?

What do you need "Run" for? You know you can basically do the same things with the search field? Try to use the "new" (it's not really new anymore) menu and features for a while.

And there are options regarding the recently used programs and files (including jump lists) in the Start Menu Properties.

[Lannister]

if they removed it I'll be disappointed

It's six feet under, hopefully.

[Akaruz]

I think the main reason they don't let you have the old configurations for long is because of resources when it comes to support and things.

I don't understand why some people find it hard to adapt to changes, especially when those changes are an improvement, but then I guess that's just me :)

Its not a question of adpating , its a question of being quicker or better in the "production" , i wonder how long it will take for all program being able to use the jumplists correctly - and i even doubt they will , and to be honest i dont see any problem on having a classic start and the new one , even if there was a warning saying that certain options wouldnt be available

I mean i dont mind the new system , but having a choice would be better , improvements dont mean its better , for me its just more "shinnier" , prettier , eye candy nothing else

What do you need "Run" for? You know you can basically do the same things with the search field? Try to use the "new" (it's not really new anymore) menu and features for a while.

And there are options regarding the recently used programs and files (including jump lists) in the Start Menu Properties.

to actually delete them ? i dont see that option just the costumize and the privacy ( I dont mind them being there for a while , but i would love a button to wipe them

About the Run well unfortunately there is still alot of programs that you need run , specially if you want to put any options , the search just runs the program , if you need to insert options on the program command line ( this as an example agth.exe /c /y /x:1231231 "z:\soft\blabla.exe" ) , search wont solve your problem

[dr_crabman]

to actually delete them ? i dont see that option just the costumize and the privacy ( I dont mind them being there for a while , but i would love a button to wipe them

About the Run well unfortunately there is still alot of programs that you need run , specially if you want to put any options , the search just runs the program , if you need to insert options on the program command line ( this as an example agth.exe /c /y /x:1231231 "z:\soft\blabla.exe" ) , search wont solve your problem

Oh, okay. You could deactivate, apply and activate them, I think that will clear the lists. It's not perfect but manageable.

And are you really sure about the options? I just tried "cmd /?" and at least that worked. Just type in the whole command and press enter. And if you really need "Run" use Win+R, no need to even touch the Start Menu.

P.S. I don't want to sound rude or anything but putting a space before every punctuation mark makes your posts a little harder to read than necessary.

[gangsta4christ]

why are people still want the classic start menu is discussing the windows 7 start menu is alot better i don;t no what the vista one was like casue i it never got near my pc

[zhangm Supervisor]

I have a hard time understanding why people won't use the Search feature in Windows Vista and 7. Is it really a huge conceptual leap forward? When you're viewing a folder with a large number of files and trying to find one, for example, defrag.exe, do you manually scroll through the entire list looking for it, or do you type "de" to let Explorer scroll you to a file beginning with those letters? What if you could do that with everything in your Start Menu? Typing a few letters and hitting Enter really is faster than scrolling, pointing, and clicking.

I admit, I don't like the "Search" paradigm that Microsoft has created. Simply calling it Search isn't quite right. It really is a combination of a search function and the Run command. Try something like shutdown -r -t 30, and then shutdown -a. It is a new way of doing things that obliterates the meticulous Start Menu organization that many power users have developed while using XP.

why are people still want the classic start menu is discussing the windows 7 start menu is alot better i don;t no what the vista one was like casue i it never got near my pc

Sometimes I wonder whether people actually speak like this in real life.

[deactivated_]

"Classic" menu is so.... 2000. You do realize it's 2009 right?

[Quillz]

"Classic" menu is so.... 2000. You do realize it's 2009 right?

Actually, the "classic" Start menu was more or less unchanged since its introduction in Windows 95.

[CrashG]

I used to use nothing but the classic menu in XP, but when I switched over to Vista I left the start menu alone and used it for a week or so. It took a bit for it to grow on me, but now there's no way I would go back to the classic menu. Win7 has just refined it. The search box is quicker than going through the cascading menus, even if you keep them organized like I do, it's so much easier just to hit a few letters and like magic... there's what you were looking for. :laugh:

I only wish there was a way to make it a little more compact though without using a 3d party theme. It just seems to be too wide, it's not like there's something there with a long name.

[Tamilboy86]

wtf, this isn't 1995!! Its 1000 times easier to hit Win and type the program name then enter(No need to type the whole name)....

[l Ancient l]

I dont see any logic in keeping it there... whats the point really... The new menu is way better and easier, it looks neat and works perfect... Leaving the classic menu would create a problem with some of the new features that win7 has to offer... Besides its not 1995 as some users above mentioned.... just move along with the progress... Im sure that once you try the new menu instead of classic you wont want to go back... ;)

[primexx]

For organized users such as myself, the classic start menu is faster and we don't need search functionality; we already know where everything is, thank you for very.

I realize and respect that many users run a much larger number of programs than I do and having a good search index improves their usability. I'm not trying to stand in the way of Microsoft innovating new solutions for those users.

I will be honest and say that once in a while I do use classic search in Windows XP. I like the classic search. But I don't like the indexing service running in the background and even when I've tried to use the indexing service, it doesn't work quite like I would expect it to. But I have no complaints that Microsoft offers the new search interface to users. I'm just happy that Microsoft also allows a registry setting to enable the classic search. Like the classic start menu, it is simple and code has already been written for it besides so it is less prone to bugs and not as difficult to maintain.

I'm sure that Microsoft has a very solid code foundation for the classic start menu as well. Does it cost Microsoft a little bit of money to keep it in new versions of Windows to make users such as myself happy? Yes it does. And Microsoft has a perfect right to say, "well, users such as yourself aren't worth this minimal cost for us." That's fine. I'm very happy that Microsoft at least took the time for Windows XP x86-64 edition; I may be using it for a long time to come.

Mine's organized too, using the search box is still a heck of a lot faster.

The indexing service doesn't impact your performance, so is there any real reason you don't like it running in the background?

[Xerxes]

I have a hard time understanding why people won't use the Search feature in Windows Vista and 7. Is it really a huge conceptual leap forward? When you're viewing a folder with a large number of files and trying to find one, for example, defrag.exe, do you manually scroll through the entire list looking for it, or do you type "de" to let Explorer scroll you to a file beginning with those letters? What if you could do that with everything in your Start Menu? Typing a few letters and hitting Enter really is faster than scrolling, pointing, and clicking.

I admit, I don't like the "Search" paradigm that Microsoft has created. Simply calling it Search isn't quite right. It really is a combination of a search function and the Run command. Try something like shutdown -r -t 30, and then shutdown -a. It is a new way of doing things that obliterates the meticulous Start Menu organization that many power users have developed while using XP.

Sometimes I wonder whether people actually speak like this in real life.

I have the same problem...had an argument with a mate over it, he claimed the classic start menu was superior and much faster then the Vista/7 one. I tried to explain to him that the built in search allows you to find what your looking for in seconds and get it going, but he wouldn't have it and insisted the classic start menu was faster :/ I think this situation is a perfect case and point of how resistance to change people are!

[deactivated_]

Actually, the "classic" Start menu was more or less unchanged since its introduction in Windows 95.

Oh, I completely understand that. I was giving people the benefit of the doubt as to the last operating system that was the only option. That way they only feel 9 years out of touch instead of 14 years.

And how's that ratio go again? Computer years are like dog years right? So for every 1 physical year it is 7 computer years? So really the classic start menu is 63 years old?

[zhangm Supervisor]

I have the same problem...had an argument with a mate over it, he claimed the classic start menu was superior and much faster then the Vista/7 one. I tried to explain to him that the built in search allows you to find what your looking for in seconds and get it going, but he wouldn't have it and insisted the classic start menu was faster :/ I think this situation is a perfect case and point of how resistance to change people are!

You should challenge him to a race. Even typing out the entire program name like Microsoft Word takes all of two seconds (never mind that on some computers, you can get away with "w").

[Tamilboy86]

You should challenge him to a race. Even typing out the entire program name like Microsoft Word takes all of two seconds (never mind that on some computers, you can get away with "w").

You can even do it by writing "m wo" :D

[lunarworks]

Actually, the "classic" Start menu was more or less unchanged since its introduction in Windows 95.

...and people complained about that back then too, asking where their Win3.1 Program Manager had gone.

Every detail you like about anything now was once considered new and bothersome by some people.